I actually think it could be very realistic. If Rogers makes this team and can provide a nice anchor. Lets take a look at the surrounding cast..

DLine - Canty (3-4 in Dallas)
JPP (can do anything)
Austin (Explosive, with a quick start)
Tuck (ultra versitile)
Joseph (seems to be more of a 4-3 guy)
Osi (Probably not a good fit for a 3-4)
Bernard (4-3 guy)

This idea keeps coming back every offseason, and every year someone has to step in and say no, it won't happen this year or any time soon.

nygpolishpunk

06-18-2012, 03:52 PM

This idea keeps coming back every offseason, and every year someone has to step in and say no, it won't happen this year or any time soon.

CGYgiant

06-18-2012, 03:53 PM

I actually think it could be very realistic. If Rogers makes this team and can provide a nice anchor. Lets take a look at the surrounding cast..

DLine - Canty (3-4 in Dallas)
JPP (can do anything)
Austin (Explosive, with a quick start)
Tuck (ultra versitile)
Joseph (seems to be more of a 4-3 guy)
Osi (Probably not a good fit for a 3-4)
Bernard (4-3 guy)

well.. you two are assuming that we are changing the entire defense. All i mentioned was a "package", meaning a few schemes or plays were we line up in a 3-4. Quit being touchy and expand the mind.

buddy33

06-18-2012, 04:01 PM

Why would you want to change a young team that just won the Super Bowl?

rick5292

06-18-2012, 04:06 PM

I actually think it could be very realistic. If Rogers makes this team and can provide a nice anchor. Lets take a look at the surrounding cast..

DLine - Canty (3-4 in Dallas)
JPP (can do anything)
Austin (Explosive, with a quick start)
Tuck (ultra versitile)
Joseph (seems to be more of a 4-3 guy)
Osi (Probably not a good fit for a 3-4)
Bernard (4-3 guy)

What's up sir? Maybe we can catch up on some Ghost Recon sometime soon. And yeah, I agree with you on this one!

Mercury

06-18-2012, 04:11 PM

We already do drop a DE into coverage sometimes, which isn't ideal, but it keeps offenses guessing and not knowing where the pressure is going to come from. Usually, it means someone else is blitzing and not strictly a 3-4 situation. But most often, it means another DB in coverage, and a three man rush which drove everyone nuts last year. (QBs had all day when we rushed only 3 guys.)

Let's face the simple fact: that is not our ideal situation with the talent we have on the Dline.

TrueBlue@NYC

06-18-2012, 04:30 PM

well.. you two are assuming that we are changing the entire defense. All i mentioned was a "package", meaning a few schemes or plays were we line up in a 3-4. Quit being touchy and expand the mind.</P>

I personally don't think adding a 3-4package really helps the defense at all. It would force us to take some of our better defenders off the field and wouldnt really serve a specific purpose other than throwing another look at the offense, which has little value nowadays since the 3-4 is now so prominent offenses know how to attack it. </P>

You don't add a package just for the sake of adding a package, it has to have a purpose. For example, our NASCAR package is design to get our best rushers all getting at the QB. Our 3 safety package was built out of necessity from lack of Lbers (in 2010) or loads of injured CBs (2012) to help get out best 11 players on the field. </P>

Unless you can come up with a goal for this package, I see no reason for the team to take all of the time to develop the package, find where players would fit in, come up with plays for it (and all of the defensive adjustments for it) and practice the whole thing. Alot of time goes into installing an alignment, and it needs to have a goal that justifies that investment. </P>

jakegibbs

06-18-2012, 04:31 PM

I actually think it could be very realistic. If Rogers makes this team and can provide a nice anchor. Lets take a look at the surrounding cast..

DLine - Canty (3-4 in Dallas)
JPP (can do anything)
Austin (Explosive, with a quick start)
Tuck (ultra versitile)
Joseph (seems to be more of a 4-3 guy)
Osi (Probably not a good fit for a 3-4)
Bernard (4-3 guy)

Never say never I guess. They can't hang around with the 32nd rank defense this season very long for sure some improvements have to come from somewhere on defense because the offense took some big off season blows @ TE, RB, OL & WR. Whoops that's everywhere right? Doom dispair & agony on me...

Toadofsteel

06-18-2012, 04:32 PM

PF is much more about the coverages than the QB pressure, which is my primary complaint about him. But he DID keep Tom Brady down to 17 points without much in the way of overall blitzing the way Spags did, so there has to be something going on there...

That said, all our front seven players are on the team because they're 4-3 players. You don't just decide to all of a sudden be a 3-4 team or run 3-4 packages. I like the depth we have at linebacker too, but unless we draft LT incarnate at that position, we will be doing a 4-3 for the forseeable future.

Also there's the little fact that most colleges run a 4-3, so it's easier to transition into our system than a 3-4...

SweetZombieJesus

06-18-2012, 04:38 PM

Our strength is the D-line (overwhelming strength at DE and not too shabby at DT).

One of our biggest weaknesses is LB

You want to take a spot away from the team's strongest unit and give it to arguably the team's weakest unit?

To say nothing of the packages where Tuck or JPP plays inside when all 3 DEs are on the field at the same time. Or the fact that the outside LBs in a 3-4 do most of what our DEs do now... Do you want to waste Osi's outside pass rush or do you want to turn him, Tuck, and JPP into linebackers? The only piece that fits this transformation is Kiwi.

fourth&forever

06-18-2012, 07:19 PM

Only if our LB's suddenly get more talented than our D-linemen.

and if frogs had wings... yadda yadda

greenca190

06-18-2012, 09:39 PM

Well.

I'll be one to agree with the original poster.

I think most of our defensive guys are versatile enough to play in a 3-4. I think Keith Rivers would be awesome off the edge, or in the middle. I think Tuck would be dominant as a 3-4 defensive end, and Canty would do well. I could see Pierre-Paul on the line of a 3-4, but would rather see him as a rushing specialist in a 3-4. Despite what most posters will say about our linebackers, I still think that the Nose tackle position would be the major concern.

Now, saying they're versatile enough to play in a 3-4 isn't me saying they are best in a 3-4. But I wouldn't be upset at all if Fewell put a couple new alignments in the play book to keep offenses guessing, as long as it is effective. We've seen defensive coordinators make 3-4 defenses work with what seemed to be weak personnel. It all comes down to whether Perry could make it work. To the best of my knowledge, he has never coached a 3-4 before.

critters

06-20-2012, 11:16 AM

A lot of the 3-4 packages I see are very similar to a 4-3. The JACK linebacker is really just a DE but sometimes has a different role. Doesn't really drop into coverage so much as he just stays home and covers his side of the field... and a lot of the time he's just getting after the quarterback like an end in a 4-3. I personally prefer 3-4 defenses but with that said, I have no interest in seeing us change our defense anytime soon. Right now our DL are better players than our LBs IMO... so a 3-4 could be counter productive. You need a great NT and MLBs to run a 3-4 and I'm not sure we have the right guys for MIKE and WILL.

giantsfan39

06-20-2012, 11:29 AM

As excited as I am about our linebackers our defensive line is still the heart of this defense, is better than the LB group and there is no reason to take one of them off the field to put a LB in.

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 11:39 AM

id rather a 46 d front, we actually have the personnel for that with the crowded lb corp we have we could mix and match and we could also use kiwi as the joker still...

only issue is for it to truly work, u need a shutdown corner to take away his side of the field. webby should be able to do that tho, and eventually prince too...

what do u guys think of that? dont wanna start a new thread when we got this one on thoughts of the 34...what r the thoughts on the 46?

altho the 46 is used to primarily generate pressure, and we can do that in the 43 better than anyone. but i would like to see a 46 front every now and then...with how much we brought rolle/kp/grant into the box, shouldnt be difficult for the d to learn at all

gmen0820

06-20-2012, 12:16 PM

id rather a 46 d front, we actually have the personnel for that with the crowded lb corp we have we could mix and match and we could also use kiwi as the joker still...

only issue is for it to truly work, u need a shutdown corner to take away his side of the field. webby should be able to do that tho, and eventually prince too...

what do u guys think of that? dont wanna start a new thread when we got this one on thoughts of the 34...what r the thoughts on the 46?

altho the 46 is used to primarily generate pressure, and we can do that in the 43 better than anyone. but i would like to see a 46 front every now and then...with how much we brought rolle/kp/grant into the box, shouldnt be difficult for the d to learn at allWith 3 and 4 wide sets becoming so widespread in the NFL today, the 46 defense is almost being rendered useless, unless you REALLY stress it and devote time to it during practices/gameplan installations. You needed really, really smart players to play in that system back in 1985 when Buddy Ryan was terrifying offenses with it.

Today, you need very lucky geniuses on defense because it's a real mismatch against 3 wide sets.

So the isolated end-tackle match ups would favor us, but a smart QB could easily just call for a hot route to the slot receiver, or a flare back. If a back flares out, than a DE has to peel out, or really get to the QB fast. Then, when a DE peels, a LBer has to rush in place. So many variables that can go wrong and easily be exploited unless you REALLY stress it in practice -- which would probably be a waste.

The one game that Ryan lost in 1985 was the perfect indicator of why the 46 defense can never be used as a base defense again, especially today. Everyone tried to bring their bodies in to block, which compromised their scheme. Shula just spread his players out, which was pretty innovative in '85, too. Today, spreading the formation is the norm, the 46 could be ripped to shreds, especially if there is a hint of confusion.

And you are right, you'd need to island corners, and we really only have one.

As for the 34 though, we'd be compromising our defensive potential if we incorporated a 34, because we are so well suited to run a 43. As for sprinkling in a couple packages, I would love it. the 34 is the best scheme if you want to predicate your scheme on applying pressure. I think it'd be a great go-to package on a 3rd-6+. Zone blitzes are run so much more efficiently from a 34.

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 12:33 PM

id rather a 46 d front, we actually have the personnel for that with the crowded lb corp we have we could mix and match and we could also use kiwi as the joker still...

only issue is for it to truly work, u need a shutdown corner to take away his side of the field. webby should be able to do that tho, and eventually prince too...

what do u guys think of that? dont wanna start a new thread when we got this one on thoughts of the 34...what r the thoughts on the 46?

altho the 46 is used to primarily generate pressure, and we can do that in the 43 better than anyone. but i would like to see a 46 front every now and then...with how much we brought rolle/kp/grant into the box, shouldnt be difficult for the d to learn at allWith 3 and 4 wide sets becoming so widespread in the NFL today, the 46 defense is almost being rendered useless, unless you REALLY stress it and devote time to it during practices/gameplan installations. You needed really, really smart players to play in that system back in 1985 when Buddy Ryan was terrifying offenses with it.

Today, you need very lucky geniuses on defense because it's a real mismatch against 3 wide sets.

So the isolated end-tackle match ups would favor us, but a smart QB could easily just call for a hot route to the slot receiver, or a flare back. If a back flares out, than a DE has to peel out, or really get to the QB fast. Then, when a DE peels, a LBer has to rush in place. So many variables that can go wrong and easily be exploited unless you REALLY stress it in practice -- which would probably be a waste.

The one game that Ryan lost in 1985 was the perfect indicator of why the 46 defense can never be used as a base defense again, especially today. Everyone tried to bring their bodies in to block, which compromised their scheme. Shula just spread his players out, which was pretty innovative in '85, too. Today, spreading the formation is the norm, the 46 could be ripped to shreds, especially if there is a hint of confusion.

And you are right, you'd need to island corners, and we really only have one.

As for the 34 though, we'd be compromising our defensive potential if we incorporated a 34, because we are so well suited to run a 43. As for sprinkling in a couple packages, I would love it. the 34 is the best scheme if you want to predicate your scheme on applying pressure. I think it'd be a great go-to package on a 3rd-6+. Zone blitzes are run so much more efficiently from a 34.

good post. but i wasnt clear, i dont want to transfer to the 46. id just rather if we were going to add a package, itd be the 46 instead of the 34 bc we have the personnel for that imho and not really the 34.
and i agree about spread offenses or 3 wide sets could shred the 46, but id think PF would utilize it on known rushing downs or against teams like SF that typically do not spread their formations out.

and the NYJ run the 46...and pretty damn well and the ravens have that package as well along with the cowboys iirc...

and the 46 generates a ton of pressure. if we had solid enough corners, which i believe we will have, u can still use a 46 concept vs those spread 3 wide out sets. the only thing is its like blitzing, so the back end really has to be thorough. u can disguise coverages too do confuse those hot routes...

i agree with ur post and i think its a good one, but i still thinkw e could utilize a 46 package. heck, with how often we ran those 3 safety sets and dropped the s into the box, and even in the base 43 we bring the safety into the box, the 46 isnt a stretch from that perspective then...

just throwing out an idea, not advocating or pushing for the 46, just like i said, id rather that front over the 34...

nycsportzfan

06-20-2012, 12:35 PM

We won 2championships playing the 4/3 in the past 5seasons, and made the playoffs in seasons during that 5yr stretch as well, so why would we wanna change?

YATittle1962

06-20-2012, 12:39 PM

the Giants already play schemes much more exotic than a base 3-4 on some downs

YATittle1962

06-20-2012, 12:40 PM

id rather a 46 d front, we actually have the personnel for that with the crowded lb corp we have we could mix and match and we could also use kiwi as the joker still...

only issue is for it to truly work, u need a shutdown corner to take away his side of the field. webby should be able to do that tho, and eventually prince too...

what do u guys think of that? dont wanna start a new thread when we got this one on thoughts of the 34...what r the thoughts on the 46?

altho the 46 is used to primarily generate pressure, and we can do that in the 43 better than anyone. but i would like to see a 46 front every now and then...with how much we brought rolle/kp/grant into the box, shouldnt be difficult for the d to learn at all

do you know what the 46 is?

can you imagine playing the Saints and Packers using Buddys defense

its pretty much obsolete my man

burier

06-20-2012, 12:46 PM

The the problem: We can't get 3 quality linebackers on field at once.

The solution: Try to put 4 quality linebackers on the field at once??????

gmen0820

06-20-2012, 12:47 PM

id rather a 46 d front, we actually have the personnel for that with the crowded lb corp we have we could mix and match and we could also use kiwi as the joker still...

only issue is for it to truly work, u need a shutdown corner to take away his side of the field. webby should be able to do that tho, and eventually prince too...

what do u guys think of that? dont wanna start a new thread when we got this one on thoughts of the 34...what r the thoughts on the 46?

altho the 46 is used to primarily generate pressure, and we can do that in the 43 better than anyone. but i would like to see a 46 front every now and then...with how much we brought rolle/kp/grant into the box, shouldnt be difficult for the d to learn at allWith 3 and 4 wide sets becoming so widespread in the NFL today, the 46 defense is almost being rendered useless, unless you REALLY stress it and devote time to it during practices/gameplan installations. You needed really, really smart players to play in that system back in 1985 when Buddy Ryan was terrifying offenses with it.

Today, you need very lucky geniuses on defense because it's a real mismatch against 3 wide sets.

So the isolated end-tackle match ups would favor us, but a smart QB could easily just call for a hot route to the slot receiver, or a flare back. If a back flares out, than a DE has to peel out, or really get to the QB fast. Then, when a DE peels, a LBer has to rush in place. So many variables that can go wrong and easily be exploited unless you REALLY stress it in practice -- which would probably be a waste.

The one game that Ryan lost in 1985 was the perfect indicator of why the 46 defense can never be used as a base defense again, especially today. Everyone tried to bring their bodies in to block, which compromised their scheme. Shula just spread his players out, which was pretty innovative in '85, too. Today, spreading the formation is the norm, the 46 could be ripped to shreds, especially if there is a hint of confusion.

And you are right, you'd need to island corners, and we really only have one.

As for the 34 though, we'd be compromising our defensive potential if we incorporated a 34, because we are so well suited to run a 43. As for sprinkling in a couple packages, I would love it. the 34 is the best scheme if you want to predicate your scheme on applying pressure. I think it'd be a great go-to package on a 3rd-6+. Zone blitzes are run so much more efficiently from a 34.

good post. but i wasnt clear, i dont want to transfer to the 46. id just rather if we were going to add a package, itd be the 46 instead of the 34 bc we have the personnel for that imho and not really the 34.
and i agree about spread offenses or 3 wide sets could shred the 46, but id think PF would utilize it on known rushing downs or against teams like SF that typically do not spread their formations out.

and the NYJ run the 46...and pretty damn well and the ravens have that package as well along with the cowboys iirc...

and the 46 generates a ton of pressure. if we had solid enough corners, which i believe we will have, u can still use a 46 concept vs those spread 3 wide out sets. the only thing is its like blitzing, so the back end really has to be thorough. u can disguise coverages too do confuse those hot routes...

i agree with ur post and i think its a good one, but i still thinkw e could utilize a 46 package. heck, with how often we ran those 3 safety sets and dropped the s into the box, and even in the base 43 we bring the safety into the box, the 46 isnt a stretch from that perspective then...

just throwing out an idea, not advocating or pushing for the 46, just like i said, id rather that front over the 34...Yeah, I guess I misinterpreted package vs. base defense.

As for the Ravens, Cowboys, and Jets using the 46, that is mainly because they all have ties to the Ryans. Rex Ryan base defense really is a 46 hybrid, and it is incredibly complex, Rob Ryan also does a lot involving the 46 as well.

The reason they have so much success with it though can arguably be tied to how much they go over it in practice. It is an incredibly complex scheme if you want to run it with consistency, that's why when Rex went to the Jets, he brought a Baltimore player from every level of his defense.

I think the thought of JPP, and Osi as wide ends, and Tuck, Canty, and Kiwi in the middle is just filthy, but I think it's impossible to run a sound 46 defense, package or base, if not taught it correctly or frequent enough. I don't think we have any ties to that defense on our staff anyway.

YATittle1962

06-20-2012, 12:54 PM

id rather a 46 d front, we actually have the personnel for that with the crowded lb corp we have we could mix and match and we could also use kiwi as the joker still...

only issue is for it to truly work, u need a shutdown corner to take away his side of the field. webby should be able to do that tho, and eventually prince too...

what do u guys think of that? dont wanna start a new thread when we got this one on thoughts of the 34...what r the thoughts on the 46?

altho the 46 is used to primarily generate pressure, and we can do that in the 43 better than anyone. but i would like to see a 46 front every now and then...with how much we brought rolle/kp/grant into the box, shouldnt be difficult for the d to learn at allWith 3 and 4 wide sets becoming so widespread in the NFL today, the 46 defense is almost being rendered useless, unless you REALLY stress it and devote time to it during practices/gameplan installations. You needed really, really smart players to play in that system back in 1985 when Buddy Ryan was terrifying offenses with it.

Today, you need very lucky geniuses on defense because it's a real mismatch against 3 wide sets.

So the isolated end-tackle match ups would favor us, but a smart QB could easily just call for a hot route to the slot receiver, or a flare back. If a back flares out, than a DE has to peel out, or really get to the QB fast. Then, when a DE peels, a LBer has to rush in place. So many variables that can go wrong and easily be exploited unless you REALLY stress it in practice -- which would probably be a waste.

The one game that Ryan lost in 1985 was the perfect indicator of why the 46 defense can never be used as a base defense again, especially today. Everyone tried to bring their bodies in to block, which compromised their scheme. Shula just spread his players out, which was pretty innovative in '85, too. Today, spreading the formation is the norm, the 46 could be ripped to shreds, especially if there is a hint of confusion.

And you are right, you'd need to island corners, and we really only have one.

As for the 34 though, we'd be compromising our defensive potential if we incorporated a 34, because we are so well suited to run a 43. As for sprinkling in a couple packages, I would love it. the 34 is the best scheme if you want to predicate your scheme on applying pressure. I think it'd be a great go-to package on a 3rd-6+. Zone blitzes are run so much more efficiently from a 34.

good post. but i wasnt clear, i dont want to transfer to the 46. id just rather if we were going to add a package, itd be the 46 instead of the 34 bc we have the personnel for that imho and not really the 34.
and i agree about spread offenses or 3 wide sets could shred the 46, but id think PF would utilize it on known rushing downs or against teams like SF that typically do not spread their formations out.

and the NYJ run the 46...and pretty damn well and the ravens have that package as well along with the cowboys iirc...

and the 46 generates a ton of pressure. if we had solid enough corners, which i believe we will have, u can still use a 46 concept vs those spread 3 wide out sets. the only thing is its like blitzing, so the back end really has to be thorough. u can disguise coverages too do confuse those hot routes...

i agree with ur post and i think its a good one, but i still thinkw e could utilize a 46 package. heck, with how often we ran those 3 safety sets and dropped the s into the box, and even in the base 43 we bring the safety into the box, the 46 isnt a stretch from that perspective then...

just throwing out an idea, not advocating or pushing for the 46, just like i said, id rather that front over the 34...Yeah, I guess I misinterpreted package vs. base defense.

As for the Ravens, Cowboys, and Jets using the 46, that is mainly because they all have ties to the Ryans. Rex Ryan base defense really is a 46 hybrid, and it is incredibly complex, Rob Ryan also does a lot involving the 46 as well.

The reason they have so much success with it though can arguably be tied to how much they go over it in practice. It is an incredibly complex scheme if you want to run it with consistency, that's why when Rex went to the Jets, he brought a Baltimore player from every level of his defense.

I think the thought of JPP, and Osi as wide ends, and Tuck, Canty, and Kiwi in the middle is just filthy, but I think it's impossible to run a sound 46 defense, package or base, if not taught it correctly or frequent enough. I don't think we have any ties to that defense on our staff anyway.

.....and when the Ryans do run it .....its usually a variation of it to display their heritage .....not Buddys full on assault

that would be suicide against some of these teams today

they are fully aware of that

plus you need very special players to run that look

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 01:00 PM

id rather a 46 d front, we actually have the personnel for that with the crowded lb corp we have we could mix and match and we could also use kiwi as the joker still...

only issue is for it to truly work, u need a shutdown corner to take away his side of the field. webby should be able to do that tho, and eventually prince too...

what do u guys think of that? dont wanna start a new thread when we got this one on thoughts of the 34...what r the thoughts on the 46?

altho the 46 is used to primarily generate pressure, and we can do that in the 43 better than anyone. but i would like to see a 46 front every now and then...with how much we brought rolle/kp/grant into the box, shouldnt be difficult for the d to learn at allWith 3 and 4 wide sets becoming so widespread in the NFL today, the 46 defense is almost being rendered useless, unless you REALLY stress it and devote time to it during practices/gameplan installations. You needed really, really smart players to play in that system back in 1985 when Buddy Ryan was terrifying offenses with it.

Today, you need very lucky geniuses on defense because it's a real mismatch against 3 wide sets.

So the isolated end-tackle match ups would favor us, but a smart QB could easily just call for a hot route to the slot receiver, or a flare back. If a back flares out, than a DE has to peel out, or really get to the QB fast. Then, when a DE peels, a LBer has to rush in place. So many variables that can go wrong and easily be exploited unless you REALLY stress it in practice -- which would probably be a waste.

The one game that Ryan lost in 1985 was the perfect indicator of why the 46 defense can never be used as a base defense again, especially today. Everyone tried to bring their bodies in to block, which compromised their scheme. Shula just spread his players out, which was pretty innovative in '85, too. Today, spreading the formation is the norm, the 46 could be ripped to shreds, especially if there is a hint of confusion.

And you are right, you'd need to island corners, and we really only have one.

As for the 34 though, we'd be compromising our defensive potential if we incorporated a 34, because we are so well suited to run a 43. As for sprinkling in a couple packages, I would love it. the 34 is the best scheme if you want to predicate your scheme on applying pressure. I think it'd be a great go-to package on a 3rd-6+. Zone blitzes are run so much more efficiently from a 34.

good post. but i wasnt clear, i dont want to transfer to the 46. id just rather if we were going to add a package, itd be the 46 instead of the 34 bc we have the personnel for that imho and not really the 34.
and i agree about spread offenses or 3 wide sets could shred the 46, but id think PF would utilize it on known rushing downs or against teams like SF that typically do not spread their formations out.

and the NYJ run the 46...and pretty damn well and the ravens have that package as well along with the cowboys iirc...

and the 46 generates a ton of pressure. if we had solid enough corners, which i believe we will have, u can still use a 46 concept vs those spread 3 wide out sets. the only thing is its like blitzing, so the back end really has to be thorough. u can disguise coverages too do confuse those hot routes...

i agree with ur post and i think its a good one, but i still thinkw e could utilize a 46 package. heck, with how often we ran those 3 safety sets and dropped the s into the box, and even in the base 43 we bring the safety into the box, the 46 isnt a stretch from that perspective then...

just throwing out an idea, not advocating or pushing for the 46, just like i said, id rather that front over the 34...Yeah, I guess I misinterpreted package vs. base defense.

As for the Ravens, Cowboys, and Jets using the 46, that is mainly because they all have ties to the Ryans. Rex Ryan base defense really is a 46 hybrid, and it is incredibly complex, Rob Ryan also does a lot involving the 46 as well.

The reason they have so much success with it though can arguably be tied to how much they go over it in practice. It is an incredibly complex scheme if you want to run it with consistency, that's why when Rex went to the Jets, he brought a Baltimore player from every level of his defense.

I think the thought of JPP, and Osi as wide ends, and Tuck, Canty, and Kiwi in the middle is just filthy, but I think it's impossible to run a sound 46 defense, package or base, if not taught it correctly or frequent enough. I don't think we have any ties to that defense on our staff anyway.

.....and when the Ryans do run it .....its usually a variation of it to display their heritage .....not Buddys full on assault

that would be suicide against some of these teams today

they are fully aware of that

sup YA...been a while. how u doing?
i understand it isnt an every down defense, and against temas that u've mentioned, it could be shredded...

that said, it could also be very effective vs teams like SF who dont spread out their offense often.

and in our 43, we bring or drop that S into the box very often, the 46 isnt much of a stretch when u consider that.
then u factor in the diverse and crowded LB unit, i believe we could use it as a package vs certain teams and situations.

i almost think of it as blitzing. ur bringing extra pressure, and unless u get creative with the back end coverage, smart qbs will shred it as u and gmen alluded to...

that said, i dont think i was clear really. i just was asking for the thoughts on the matter, which u and gmen have done so well. i just find the thought of it interesting. im not advocating dropping our d and switching to the 46, i just think our team is better suited for the 46 over the 34 bc we lack a true nose tackle imho and we barely have 1 mlb let alone two...just personnel wise i see us being able to do the 46 over the 34...

edit-and i mean the 46 in a version of it, not the 46 used in the 80's. like the variations that we see the ryans use, i think we could use and be pretty creative w it too

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 01:07 PM

id rather a 46 d front, we actually have the personnel for that with the crowded lb corp we have we could mix and match and we could also use kiwi as the joker still...

only issue is for it to truly work, u need a shutdown corner to take away his side of the field. webby should be able to do that tho, and eventually prince too...

what do u guys think of that? dont wanna start a new thread when we got this one on thoughts of the 34...what r the thoughts on the 46?

altho the 46 is used to primarily generate pressure, and we can do that in the 43 better than anyone. but i would like to see a 46 front every now and then...with how much we brought rolle/kp/grant into the box, shouldnt be difficult for the d to learn at allWith 3 and 4 wide sets becoming so widespread in the NFL today, the 46 defense is almost being rendered useless, unless you REALLY stress it and devote time to it during practices/gameplan installations. You needed really, really smart players to play in that system back in 1985 when Buddy Ryan was terrifying offenses with it.

Today, you need very lucky geniuses on defense because it's a real mismatch against 3 wide sets.

So the isolated end-tackle match ups would favor us, but a smart QB could easily just call for a hot route to the slot receiver, or a flare back. If a back flares out, than a DE has to peel out, or really get to the QB fast. Then, when a DE peels, a LBer has to rush in place. So many variables that can go wrong and easily be exploited unless you REALLY stress it in practice -- which would probably be a waste.

The one game that Ryan lost in 1985 was the perfect indicator of why the 46 defense can never be used as a base defense again, especially today. Everyone tried to bring their bodies in to block, which compromised their scheme. Shula just spread his players out, which was pretty innovative in '85, too. Today, spreading the formation is the norm, the 46 could be ripped to shreds, especially if there is a hint of confusion.

And you are right, you'd need to island corners, and we really only have one.

As for the 34 though, we'd be compromising our defensive potential if we incorporated a 34, because we are so well suited to run a 43. As for sprinkling in a couple packages, I would love it. the 34 is the best scheme if you want to predicate your scheme on applying pressure. I think it'd be a great go-to package on a 3rd-6+. Zone blitzes are run so much more efficiently from a 34.

good post. but i wasnt clear, i dont want to transfer to the 46. id just rather if we were going to add a package, itd be the 46 instead of the 34 bc we have the personnel for that imho and not really the 34.
and i agree about spread offenses or 3 wide sets could shred the 46, but id think PF would utilize it on known rushing downs or against teams like SF that typically do not spread their formations out.

and the NYJ run the 46...and pretty damn well and the ravens have that package as well along with the cowboys iirc...

and the 46 generates a ton of pressure. if we had solid enough corners, which i believe we will have, u can still use a 46 concept vs those spread 3 wide out sets. the only thing is its like blitzing, so the back end really has to be thorough. u can disguise coverages too do confuse those hot routes...

i agree with ur post and i think its a good one, but i still thinkw e could utilize a 46 package. heck, with how often we ran those 3 safety sets and dropped the s into the box, and even in the base 43 we bring the safety into the box, the 46 isnt a stretch from that perspective then...

just throwing out an idea, not advocating or pushing for the 46, just like i said, id rather that front over the 34...Yeah, I guess I misinterpreted package vs. base defense.

As for the Ravens, Cowboys, and Jets using the 46, that is mainly because they all have ties to the Ryans. Rex Ryan base defense really is a 46 hybrid, and it is incredibly complex, Rob Ryan also does a lot involving the 46 as well.

The reason they have so much success with it though can arguably be tied to how much they go over it in practice. It is an incredibly complex scheme if you want to run it with consistency, that's why when Rex went to the Jets, he brought a Baltimore player from every level of his defense.

I think the thought of JPP, and Osi as wide ends, and Tuck, Canty, and Kiwi in the middle is just filthy, but I think it's impossible to run a sound 46 defense, package or base, if not taught it correctly or frequent enough. I don't think we have any ties to that defense on our staff anyway.

agreed. and that jpp osi at wide end with those 3 in the middle is nascar on steroids lol...

thats partly why i think we could do it. our pressure would disrupt those spread offenses even. if u can bait and disguise the coverages on the hot routes, it could be highly effecient. but as u stated, we dont have the coaches to really do it.
and even if we did, its one thing to draw it up on the board, its another to execute. ur point about applying a ton of time devoted to it is a good one. i remember dallas and rob ryan saying how the d was so detailed that it confused some of his players and it led to big time plays given up to opposing offenses.

that said, still would rather the 46 concept variation over the 34

YATittle1962

06-20-2012, 01:09 PM

sup YA...been a while. how u doing?

doing well my man

and I totally get what yr saying about the 46

mix it in now and then ........very strategically of course

sure why not

if you have the horses ....run the race

do we have the horses for a 46 look is the question

MattMeyerBud

06-20-2012, 01:15 PM

well.. you two are assuming that we are changing the entire defense. All i mentioned was a "package", meaning a few schemes or plays were we line up in a 3-4. Quit being touchy and expand the mind.</P>

</P>

we've run shades of a 3-4 package multiple times last year</P>

slipknottin

06-20-2012, 06:18 PM

Sheridan ran the closest thing to a base 3-4 the giants have had in recent memory.

How did that work out??

Cool Papa B.

06-20-2012, 09:27 PM

the Giants already play schemes much more exotic than a base 3-4 on some downs

Exactly. every now and then they run a hybrid form of the 3-4. But I can't see them switching to a regular 3-4 set under Coughlin. Plus our LB core isn't built for that.

Joe Morrison

06-20-2012, 10:48 PM

the Giants already play schemes much more exotic than a base 3-4 on some downs Exactly. every now and then they run a hybrid form of the 3-4. But I can't see them switching to a regular 3-4 set under Coughlin. Plus our LB core isn't built for that.</P>

Agreed, GMEN don't have 4 LB's to run a true 3-4.</P>

</P>

THE_New_York_Giants

06-20-2012, 10:53 PM

I could see a 3-4 esq formation in certain situations... but not as the base defense

bearbryant

06-20-2012, 11:31 PM

I have no idea how we'll get 4 LB's and a few 300 lb DE's to fit a scheme like that. Okay, so we got Rodgers and Canty but otherwise its a no go. Please letskeep the ole 4-3 and continue to gather LombardiTrophy's ever few years!!! `

JJC7301

06-21-2012, 01:10 AM

1) Rogers won't be making a nice anchor because he'll be back-up at best.

2) We have a very good 4-3 D that gets to the QB and I have no desire to fool around with that.

GameTime

06-21-2012, 09:58 AM

I actually think it could be very realistic. If Rogers makes this team and can provide a nice anchor. Lets take a look at the surrounding cast.. DLine - Canty (3-4 in Dallas) JPP (can do anything) Austin (Explosive, with a quick start) Tuck (ultra versitile) Joseph (seems to be more of a 4-3 guy) Osi (Probably not a good fit for a 3-4) Bernard (4-3 guy) LB - Kiwi (Great fit, experience at both LB/DE) Boley (extremely versitile, might be MLB) Rivers (Athletic enough to play all posit.) JWill (Great athlete and good coverage) Herz (Superb tackler, working on cover) Chase (same as Herz) Jones (good tackler, not great in cover) Tracy (Great pass rushing ability)</P>

Austin...explosive with a quick start??? Since when...2009???</P>

JPP.....how do you know he can do anything? Two yearguy who is great in a 4-3 and admits he is still learning.</P>

The Giants do a hybrid 3-4 when they only rush three as it is so they kind of have that package. </P>

Herz....superb tackler?....you've seen enough of him to make that statement??</P>

Tracy??....come on.....</P>

RoanokeFan

06-21-2012, 11:03 AM

I actually think it could be very realistic. If Rogers makes this team and can provide a nice anchor. Lets take a look at the surrounding cast..

DLine - Canty (3-4 in Dallas)
JPP (can do anything)
Austin (Explosive, with a quick start)
Tuck (ultra versitile)
Joseph (seems to be more of a 4-3 guy)
Osi (Probably not a good fit for a 3-4)
Bernard (4-3 guy)

I guess my first thought is you're giving some players a lot of credit based on nothing factual. Rogers has been sidelined since he's been here with a health issue (elbow). Austin hasn't played in two years. JPP "can do anything" is a lovely thought but what's that based on? He's arguably the best DE we have, what else does he do that well?

Realistically, TC isn't going to upend everything that's proven to be successful on a whim. We bring in players that we want to develop into our system. That's the 4-3 at the moment, has been since TC has been here, and is likely to continue to be while he's still here.

As someone has already said, this question surfaces almost as much as "bring back Burress."

RagTime Blue

06-21-2012, 11:16 AM

You know Fewell is going to mix it up a bit this year again. Some of it, we'll like. . .some of it will make you question if coaches should be tested for drugs.

First time JPP drops back into coverage and Boley blitzes. . .consider that a 3-4.

Bottom line is that if you're not getting better with new looks in this league, you're dead in the water. Fewell knows that, and he's pretty good at keeping offenses (and fans) guessing.

nygsb42champs

06-21-2012, 11:29 AM

Why? Our LB's are better than in years past but we still do not have the type of LB's needed to play a 3-4.

nycisgreat

06-21-2012, 03:48 PM

I actually think it could be very realistic. If Rogers makes this team and can provide a nice anchor. Lets take a look at the surrounding cast..

DLine - Canty (3-4 in Dallas)
JPP (can do anything)
Austin (Explosive, with a quick start)
Tuck (ultra versitile)
Joseph (seems to be more of a 4-3 guy)
Osi (Probably not a good fit for a 3-4)
Bernard (4-3 guy)